Anyone watching the State of the State Starts @11am

[DavieD55]

Watch the General Assembly via the Colorado Channel (http://coloradochannel.net/node/1620)

[Kraven251]

whole lot of circle jerking so far

[DavieD55]

He just said we need backround checks for private gun sales.

[Kraven251]

He just said we need backround checks for private gun sales.

we knew that was coming

[wreave]

He just said we need backround checks for private gun sales.

I know this puts me in the minority on this board, but I support this. Run it through an FFL, pay the $15-20. Otherwise, we have a huge outflow of guns from private, legal citizens to those who shouldn't have them.

[buckeye4rnr]

I know this puts me in the minority on this board, but I support this. Run it through an FFL, pay the $15-20. Otherwise, we have a huge outflow of guns from private, legal citizens to those who shouldn't have them.

Assuming that everyone follows the rules of course.

[flan7211]

I know this puts me in the minority on this board, but I support this. Run it through an FFL, pay the $15-20. Otherwise, we have a huge outflow of guns from private, legal citizens to those who shouldn't have them.

Damn right we don't agree. For us law abiding citizens its not your damn business who has what firearms.

[blacklabel]

I know this puts me in the minority on this board, but I support this. Run it through an FFL, pay the $15-20. Otherwise, we have a huge outflow of guns from private, legal citizens to those who shouldn't have them.

So we're all selling to felons? Gotcha.

[ChunkyMonkey]

I know this puts me in the minority on this board, but I support this. Run it through an FFL, pay the $15-20. Otherwise, we have a huge outflow of guns from private, legal citizens to those who shouldn't have them.

This will dictate gun registration. There is no point to run every gun sales through background check if there is no way to track it, right? You sir is a dumbass.

[DavieD55]

This will dictate gun registration. There is no point to run every gun sales through background check if there is no way to track it, right? You sir is a dumbass.


That is the road we're heading for.

[ChunkyMonkey]

For those who think background check will solve the issue, let me remind you that guns don't kill, the dumbasses do. So why are we not marking these felons, wife beaters, mentally disabled whom btw will still pass background check anyway by giving them a different ID/DL.

FYI, I only sell guns to CCW holders unless I know that person personally. In any case, that is my personal responsibility, not the feds.

[Dave_L]

http://kdvr.com/2013/01/10/read-entire-state-of-the-state-address-delivered-by-gov-hickenlooper/

^Entire transcript for those that missed it.

[merl]

if thats all he called for we got off lucky

[Clint45]

He just said we need backround checks for private gun sales.

Legal precedents show that a "sale" is indistinquishable from "transfer of ownership." That means it will be a crime to give your fiance a revolver from your personal collection to keep next to her bed, a crime to give your nephew the old .22 bolt action you owned as a boy, crime to swap shotguns with a co-worker, and if you die and your family does not notify the authorities about your gun collection so they can either be registered or confiscated they'll probably be guilty of a crime as well.

Note that they are unlikely to mention these particulars in any of their tearful handwringing speeches. It will be snuck into the small print in the middle of a 100+ page document.

[Kraven251]

Note that they are unlikely to mention these particulars in any of their tearful handwringing speeches. It will be snuck into the small print in the middle of a 100+ page document.

Missed a zero, "1000+" most of us could sort through a 100+ pages in a timely fashion

[CrufflerSteve]

Good catch Clint. That could be a gotcha unless sale is really specified as permanent transfer of ownership. We'd have to have a gun check at the range every time someone tries another person's gun. It would be a great way to nail someone the authoritah doesn't like.

Goodbye to rentals at the range & machine guns shoots. It also will cause a major problem for dealing with estates.

[DavieD55]

Legal precedents show that a "sale" is indistinquishable from "transfer of ownership." That means it will be a crime to give your fiance a revolver from your personal collection to keep next to her bed, a crime to give your nephew the old .22 bolt action you owned as a boy, crime to swap shotguns with a co-worker, and if you die and your family does not notify the authorities about your gun collection so they can either be registered or confiscated they'll probably be guilty of a crime as well.

Note that they are unlikely to mention these particulars in any of their tearful handwringing speeches. It will be snuck into the small print in the middle of a 100+ page document.



I think that will be more than likely at Federal level. But yeah, They're not going to tell us what is in the mix.

[flan7211]

I'm getting tired of these plants on the forums. They seem reasonable but beware they are leading us to slaughter.

[trlcavscout]

I know this puts me in the minority on this board, but I support this. Run it through an FFL, pay the $15-20. Otherwise, we have a huge outflow of guns from private, legal citizens to those who shouldn't have them.

Wow! Are you fucking serious? You must ride the short bus.

[68Charger]

I'm getting tired of these plants on the forums. They seem reasonable but beware they are leading us to slaughter.

rubber tree plants?

They speak of "compromise", but what are law-abiding gun owners getting in return?

[JohnTRourke]

not one more inch.

[wreave]

Sorry guys, I don't buy the slippery slope.

I've seen all the ads on the Trading Post here. Some people ask for a CCW "if you have it". Some ask for a peek at CO DL. Many don't care at all - show up with cash and walk away with a gun. The attitude is that it's the seller's right to sell his property, and it's the buyer's responsibility to be legal, and the government's responsibility to work it out if they're not.

Most guys on here, if not all of them, not only don't want to go to prison, but they don't want to lose their right to own guns. It's one thing, for example, to CC into a business that's posted "no weapons". Worst case scenario is a trespassing ticket, and 95% chance you don't even get that. However, who on here, if it were a felony to sell a firearm to someone without a background check, would take that chance?

I remember when the NICS and its Colorado counterpart were being debated. That was supposed to lead to gun registration, too. But it didn't. And you know what? Other than the last few weeks, the system has worked pretty well. I think we should be arresting and prosecuting people who attempt to buy that are denied for cause, but that's a whole nother kettle of fish.

Regardless, it seems to me a reasonable step to make it harder for those who shouldn't have guns to get them. Furthermore, it seems reasonable to a lot of non-gun owners. Think about it. You're going to say to someone with a straight face, "Yeah, I have to get a background check if I buy a gun at a store, but then I can sell it to anyone I want, for cash, no ID, no questions asked." How do you think that's perceived by the public? Does it make it look like we care about guns getting into the hands of those who shouldn't have them?

[merl]

rubber tree plants?

They speak of "compromise", but what are law-abiding gun owners getting in return?

alot more hassle, same as always.

[merl]

I remember when the NICS and its Colorado counterpart were being debated. That was supposed to lead to gun registration, too. But it didn't. And you know what? Other than the last few weeks, the system has worked pretty well. I think we should be arresting and prosecuting people who attempt to buy that are denied for cause, but that's a whole nother kettle of fish.



chopped a big part of your message

the instant background check is not instant, it never has been. it turns a 10 minute transaction into a 2 hour transaction. When you have to plan your day around an activity that should take minutes, it is not working properly.

[Great-Kazoo]

Sorry guys, I don't buy the slippery slope.

I've seen all the ads on the Trading Post here. Some people ask for a CCW "if you have it". Some ask for a peek at CO DL. Many don't care at all - show up with cash and walk away with a gun. The attitude is that it's the seller's right to sell his property, and it's the buyer's responsibility to be legal, and the government's responsibility to work it out if they're not.

Most guys on here, if not all of them, not only don't want to go to prison, but they don't want to lose their right to own guns. It's one thing, for example, to CC into a business that's posted "no weapons". Worst case scenario is a trespassing ticket, and 95% chance you don't even get that. However, who on here, if it were a felony to sell a firearm to someone without a background check, would take that chance?

I remember when the NICS and its Colorado counterpart were being debated. That was supposed to lead to gun registration, too. But it didn't. And you know what? Other than the last few weeks, the system has worked pretty well. I think we should be arresting and prosecuting people who attempt to buy that are denied for cause, but that's a whole nother kettle of fish.

Regardless, it seems to me a reasonable step to make it harder for those who shouldn't have guns to get them. Furthermore, it seems reasonable to a lot of non-gun owners. Think about it. You're going to say to someone with a straight face, "Yeah, I have to get a background check if I buy a gun at a store, but then I can sell it to anyone I want, for cash, no ID, no questions asked." How do you think that's perceived by the public? Does it make it look like we care about guns getting into the hands of those who shouldn't have them?

Did you run a thorough BG check on the last person who you sold a car to? If "WE" cared how the public "percieves " Gun Owners should Eric Holder not be in prison as i type? Where is your moral outrage with lack of accountability from the Justice Dept. After all it is about preception is is not?

NYC has a revolving door policy with felons found in possession of a firearm. Yet Emporer Bloomberg says / DEMANDS stricter gun laws. How can anything happen until we make Murder Illegal.

BTW: How's that War on Drugs working ?

[DavieD55]

chopped a big part of your message

the instant background check is not instant, it never has been. it turns a 10 minute transaction into a 2 hour transaction. When you have to plan your day around an activity that should take minutes, it is not working properly.

Look at it now there is like an 8 or 9 day wait.

[newracer]

Background checks for all sales is not the answer. James Holmes passed a background check.

[Inconel710]

Background checks for all sales is not the answer. James Holmes passed a background check.


So did Jared Loughner. Mandating background checks for private sales won't stop the people knowingly acting as straw buyers - they're already breaking the law and don't care. It will make seemingly normal things like loaning a gun to someone you know a pain in the ass.

[wreave]

Did you run a thorough BG check on the last person who you sold a car to? If "WE" cared how the public "percieves " Gun Owners should Eric Holder not be in prison as i type? Where is your moral outrage with lack of accountability from the Justice Dept. After all it is about preception is is not?

NYC has a revolving door policy with felons found in possession of a firearm. Yet Emporer Bloomberg says / DEMANDS stricter gun laws. How can anything happen until we make Murder Illegal.

BTW: How's that War on Drugs working ?

Let's see, in reverse order:

I am not a supporter of the war on drugs. Don't use them (I don't even drink), but I am a supporter of legalization. Not sure what that has to do with background checks.

Agree with you on Bloomberg.

Eric Holder should absolutely be held accountable for F&F. However, his boss likes him and will continue to protect him. Don't hold your breath on waiting for him to face justice.

I'd like to caution you, and other folks, on the car sales analogy. Cars are registered, and drivers are licensed. So unless you want to start paying an annual tax and registration fee on all your guns, and get a gun owner's license to be allowed to use them, that's not a comparison I'd be making. Furthermore, the driving system, with highly visible registration plates, is pretty easily enforceable by police. Not sure I want to have a big tag on the side of my rifle so that a cop can wander up and down the firing line at the range, inspecting plates.

Again, there were a lot of people saying the background check system would lead to registration. It didn't, and I don't think running all transactions through FFLs will, either.

[trlcavscout]

Sorry guys, I don't buy the slippery slope.

I've seen all the ads on the Trading Post here. Some people ask for a CCW "if you have it". Some ask for a peek at CO DL. Many don't care at all - show up with cash and walk away with a gun. The attitude is that kit's the seller's right to sell his property, and it's the buyer's responsibility to be legal, and the government's responsibility to work it out if they're not.

Most guys on here, if not all of them, not only don't want to go to prison, but they don't want to lose their right to own guns. It's one thing, for example, to CC into a business that's posted "no weapons". Worst case scenario is a trespassing ticket, and 95% chance you don't even get that. However, who on here, if it were a felony to sell a firearm to someone without a background check, would take that chance?

I remember when the NICS and its Colorado counterpart were being debated. That was supposed to lead to gun registration, too. But it didn't. And you know what? Other than the last few weeks, the system has worked pretty well. I think we should be arresting and prosecuting people who attempt to buy that are denied for cause, but that's a whole nother kettle of fish.

Regardless, it seems to me a reasonable step to make it harder for those who shouldn't have guns to get them. Furthermore, it seems reasonable to a lot of non-gun owners. Think about it. You're going to say to someone with a straight face, "Yeah, I have to get a background check if I buy a gun at a store, but then I can sell it to anyone I want, for cash, no ID, no questions asked." How do you think that's perceived by the public? Does it make it look like we care about guns getting into the hands of those who shouldn't have them?

I lived in Las Vegas for 5 years where gun registration is mandatory, private sales have to go through the background check etc and all the BS. Guess what, it doesnt keep criminals from getting guns all it does is register our guns and hassle us.

[Zundfolge]

Background checks are useless (and frankly their purpose is to hassle the law abiding making the process more difficult in order to prevent as many law abiding folk from buying guns as they can, not stop bad guys from getting guns).

John Lott covers the issue pretty well here (http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2011/06/problem-with-brady-background-checks.html).

[wreave]

So did Jared Loughner. Mandating background checks for private sales won't stop the people knowingly acting as straw buyers - they're already breaking the law and don't care. It will make seemingly normal things like loaning a gun to someone you know a pain in the ass.

Regarding loaning guns, let's put an appropriate provision in the law to address it.

We all know that background checks will not prevent the first-time offenders, like the Giffords shooter and Aurora shooter (I avoid using their names), from getting guns. However, they will demonstrate that we, as a community, actually care about not selling to people who shouldn't have guns. Right now that's a pretty hard argument to make.

[wreave]

Background checks are useless (and frankly their purpose is to hassle the law abiding making the process more difficult in order to prevent as many law abiding folk from buying guns as they can, not stop bad guys from getting guns).

John Lott covers the issue pretty well here (http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2011/06/problem-with-brady-background-checks.html).

I had a false positive once. It was inconvenient and embarrassing. They turned it into an approval about three hours after I left the gun shop, but it was too late.

However, for all the problems the background check system has, some of which are identified by Lott in the article, I don't think that just allowing anyone to walk in off the street with cash and buy a gun is the solution. Do you?

[Great-Kazoo]

I'd like to caution you, and other folks, on the car sales analogy. Cars are registered, and drivers are licensed. So unless you want to start paying an annual tax and registration fee on all your guns, and get a gun owner's license to be allowed to use them, that's not a comparison I'd be making. Furthermore, the driving system, with highly visible registration plates, is pretty easily enforceable by police. Not sure I want to have a big tag on the side of my rifle so that a cop can wander up and down the firing line at the range, inspecting plates.

Again, there were a lot of people saying the background check system would lead to registration. It didn't, and I don't think running all transactions through FFLs will, either.

Ummmmmmm most of my guns Are registered and a tax paid on them. Driving is a PRIVILIGE. OWNING A GUN IS A RIGHT
Lets not get the 2 confused.

[ChunkyMonkey]

Regarding loaning guns, let's put an appropriate provision in the law to address it.

We all know that background checks will not prevent the first-time offenders, like the Giffords shooter and Aurora shooter (I avoid using their names), from getting guns. However, they will demonstrate that we, as a community, actually care about not selling to people who shouldn't have guns. Right now that's a pretty hard argument to make.
Bulls. With that same argument, why don't you advocate that criminals and felons simply get tat on their forehead for easy id, instead of imposing on the 90 million legal gun owners. What part of shall not be infringed don't you understand.

[DavieD55]

However, they will demonstrate that we, as a community, actually care about not selling to people who shouldn't have guns. Right now that's a pretty hard argument to make.

I dont think it shows anybody anything. That is like saying that if we give up our firearms it will demonstrate that we as a community actually care.

[Gman]

A gun is property. Why should I be required to ask the government for permission to sell it?

[Inconel710]

Regarding loaning guns, let's put an appropriate provision in the law to address it.

You have a lot of faith in the Democrat party. Most of the talking points I've heard coming from that direction have not made that distinction. They'll argue against such a common sense provision by saying "Then everyone will just "say" they loaned it to them to get around the system". I seriously doubt it would happen.

The only reason the current NICS has not turned into a registration system is because Congress has to repeatedly deny funding to the BATFE for any such system. The pressure to change that is going to ratchet up with any new system.

[asmo]

I remember when the NICS and its Colorado counterpart were being debated. That was supposed to lead to gun registration, too. But it didn't. And you know what? Other than the last few weeks, the system has worked pretty well.

I can tell that you really don't know what your talking about here from a factual basis and are just talking from your feelings. Your 4473 is de facto registration - and has been proved as such by FBI firearm traces. They get all the 4473s in the end (gun shop closes - or when they ask for them) - they scan them and index them. The online submittals makes it even easier (please don't tell me about how they are supposed to destroy the data...). Its how it works. Private sales are the only way around that.

Oh, and the NICS/CBI system *DOESNT* work - thats what has been proven over and over. Bad people still have guns, good people still get hassled for no reason. Yes NICS/CBI has prevented some number of prohibited people from buying a gun at a store/show -- it has also screwed over an equal number of good people by falsly identifing them.

[asmo]

The only reason the current NICS has not turned into a registration system is because Congress has to repeatedly deny funding to the BATFE for any such system. The pressure to change that is going to ratchet up with any new system.

NICS is run by the FBI and it has no such limitation.

[DavieD55]

I can tell that you really don't know what your talking about here from a factual basis and are just talking from your feelings. Your 4473 is de facto registration - and has been proved as such by FBI firearm traces. They get all the 4473s in the end (gun shop closes - or when they ask for them) - they scan them and index them. The online submittals makes it even easier (please don't tell me about how they are supposed to destroy the data...). Its how it works. Private sales are the only way around that.

Oh, and the NICS/CBI system *DOESNT* work - thats what has been proven over and over. Bad people still have guns, good people still get hassled for no reason. Yes NICS/CBI has prevented some number of prohibited people from buying a gun at a store/show -- it has also screwed over an equal number of good people by falsly identifing them.


This^^^^^^

[rockhound]

A gun is property. Why should I be required to ask the government for permission to sell it?

actually you are not asking permission to sell it the buyer is asking permission to own it

I posted this in another thread.

it is not about gun control folks, it is about taxes. if you have to jump through hoops to buy a gun they can tax the sale of a used gun just like used car. there will be some kind of tax or fee or other money charged for something. the fact that they will now know who has them is just a bonus for when they decide to take them away.

I am not in favor of background checking anything, but backgrounding all private sales will happen, hide and watch. you will have to register you guns, and you will be responsible if they are stolen and used in a crime cause they have to be locked up. so when the bad guys come to the door you are going to have to ask them to wait while you open your safe unlock the trigger and load your weapon.





the deal is

[Dingo]

^^This^^ is the number one reason every firearm I previously owned (before that dreadful accident at the lake) has been a private transaction.

[sellersm]

A gun is property. Why should I be required to ask the government for permission to sell it?

Good luck proving that any Amerikan actually "owns" any property at all! Kinda like all Apple products, you don't actually own it...

[mcantar18c]

I ONLY deal private party, specifically because there are no background checks or 4473s (rather, no paper trails). This way, there's nothing connecting me to any firearms. Yes, I can legally own a firearm and pass a background check no problem... I'm active duty mil with a security clearance for Christ's sake. No, I'm not planning any mass murders or anything.
No paper trails means if/when the gov comes around to collect our guns, they have nothing pointing them to me. If gov confiscation programs are too crazy for you to believe possible, another reason is if I sell a gun to someone and down the road they or someone they sell to (or if its stolen from them) decide to use that firearm in a crime, I don't have to deal with the headache of being questioned by the police. Not to mention, I don't like paying marked up prices for a brand new gun when I can find one with a few hundred rounds through it for a few hundred less.

[Jer]

I'd like to caution you, and other folks, on the car sales analogy. Cars are registered, and drivers are licensed. So unless you want to start paying an annual tax and registration fee on all your guns, and get a gun owner's license to be allowed to use them, that's not a comparison I'd be making. Furthermore, the driving system, with highly visible registration plates, is pretty easily enforceable by police. Not sure I want to have a big tag on the side of my rifle so that a cop can wander up and down the firing line at the range, inspecting plates.

That's funny, all that government restriction and control to create a 'safe' country and I still feel like cars are the most dangerous things out there and have plenty of stats to back me up. The TSA is a federal agency operating under the auspices of keeping is all 'safe'. Do you feel any more safe or just inconvenienced and under the magnifying glass of tyranny? Do you honestly feel that additional government intervention will make anything safer? Even if it does does the few dozen lives saved each year make life any more worth living for the free people of this great nation? In other words, is the tyranny worth the safety.. even assuming it does somehow create safety?

[Jer]

Good luck proving that any Amerikan actually "owns" any property at all! Kinda like all Apple products, you don't actually own it...

This is a wonderful hoax our beloved government has played on all of us. You think you own that land? Even if you have no lean or owe nobody money for the transfer of the land to your possession try not paying another penny on it and see what happens. Stop paying your taxes and see how long until the government takes their... uh... I mean... your land back. Face it, we're all renting it from the government and if you don't believe me stop paying them and see how wrong I am.